Comments on: Experts on media deregulation

By: raj

raj — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 11:29:30 +0000

Media deregulation? Oh, please, give me a break. The FCC creates an artificial shortage for broadcast media—in the form of licenses—which hasn’t been deregulated. The only thing that IS being deregulated—or for which regulation is being loosened—is ownership rules for those licenses. Thereby fostering an increase in concentration. And regarding cable, most cities and towns license one—count them, ONE—cable provider for the town. And, other than local broadcast outlets that it is required to carry, the cable provider determines what it will carry. And, quite frankly, more than a few of the various channels that are provided over cable (and over satellite dish, for that matter) are owned by only a very few media companies. The internet? Information? Let’s not get started on that. There is much that is useful available over the internet. But any idiot can set up a web site, and more than a few have.

By: brayden

brayden — Thu, 25 Sep 2003 05:55:15 +0000

Responding to the previous comment – I think it is a mistaken perception that Senators overrode the FCC’s rule changes because they were responding to an outraged public, or even a slightly distraught constituency. Most people do not know about the rule changes or even care about them that much. Not surprisingly, many politicians feel they have a vested interest in ensuring media diversity. Trent Lott, in particular, has voiced his opinion against the “liberal” media bias. Meanwhile, Democrats are shriveling at the growing Murdoch empire. Politicians may be acting in their own interest by opposing the FCC’s rule changes. Whether or not their perception of media influence is accurate is another question.

By: PG

PG — Wed, 24 Sep 2003 22:41:06 +0000

What has amazed me the most about media de-regulation is the success that activists have had in communicating their concerns to politicians. Superficially, this doesn’t seem like a big deal—at least, not compared to bread-and-butter policy like entitlements, education, etc.—yet a good cross-section of the Senate voted to override the FCC’s de-regulation. People like Trent Lott, even.

By: eszter

eszter — Wed, 24 Sep 2003 21:56:17 +0000

Yes, that’s a good point. I felt confident making that comment because I was on the Program Committee of TPRC this year, which means that I took part in evaluating the submissions. We had about 85 accepted papers from over 300 submissions. Having read through dozens and dozens of submissions, I can say with confidence that this is a very selective conference given that we had to turn down numerous good papers.

By: Chun the Unavoidable

Chun the Unavoidable — Wed, 24 Sep 2003 21:50:38 +0000

I just posted an entry on my own little blog that asked, among other things, if acceptance rate is a good measure of quality. Your comment about this conference suggests that it is.

I was asking in terms of journals specifically, but the question is still valid. For acceptance rate to be a measure of quality, there has to be a sufficient range of submissions. A journal that publishes 100 articles out of a thousand per year would be better, ceteris paribus, than one which published 10 out of a 100, I suspect.

Another way of asking the question would be, if you know nothing about a journal’s content and need to evaulate it, would acceptance rate and total submissions be enough information? Also, how common is it for journals to misreport this information to gathering bodies?